More on the Penn State case
My print column yesterday on Gov. Tom Corbett’s lawsuit against the NCAA sparked an angry reply.
The caller, an older gentleman and Penn State alum, was not upset by either Gov. Corbett nor the lawsuit. He was ticked off at me. In particular he was irate over one sentence in the column.
It was the one where I offered my theory - one I’ve espoused several times - about how Jerry Sandusky was allowed to get away with what he did for as long as he did.
My theory is that they all knew, or at least had their suspicions, and looked the other way to protect Penn State football.
The caller called me on the carpet for that statement, asking me what proof I have of such a claim. He’s right. I don’t have any proof. It’s just my gut feeling. He proceeded to ream me out for the better part of five minutes, railing about the rush to justice in the case and how irresponsible I was for writing what I did.
He clearly believes Joe Paterno got a raw deal in all this, an opinion we actually share. He also wondered why no one bothers to precede the news about the Penn State officials who still face trial in connection with the case with the word “allegedly.”
“You have cop killers and everyone else under the sun who get at least that,” he said. “But not these guys. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? It’s all a rush to judgment.”
I certainly have formed no opinion on the three officials who have been charged. If I’m leaning any way, I think it will be a very difficult case to prove.
My point in writing Monday’s column was not to dredge up more ill will against Penn State.
It was instead a plea to remember the people who already seem to be forgotten as we rush in to fight the sanctions placed on Penn State and their football team.
Remember the children. That’s all.
Apparently, in this case, it’s too much.